One statistical example would be this experience in 75. Using default ratings a 68 rated wr got unhappy in 4 games when a 56 rated guy was starting and the team was losing. I was bothered by the 68's tude so figured to NOT start him anyway, but give him MORE snaps.
And when i say starting the 56 was # 2 on the depth chart and still is now , but a switch in playing time occured.
Snap counts were like 60 to 30.
56 rated wr to 68 rated wr.
Adjusting snap counts ,not who was starting, brought the 68 back to normal in one game. The 68 WR had 60 snaps and the 54 started at WR #2 but i limited his play through overides and play choice.
Still, allowing my WR #1 to get most snaps, the WR #3 to get the next most and then WR #2 to still be higher than WR #4's snaps. The way i wanted it in the first place.
I originally wanted the better overall WR to play the slot, and sub in for WR #1 and WR #2 in the red zone, but my team rarely got there.
Combining strageties not only helped my team, but got his attitude better. My logic to stretch the field with the 56 rated but faster WR was counter productive as experienced DBs caused many problems though that faster WR had a beat at times, as low route and hands caused these incompletions.
Now, We still go deep and the WR #3 is the better blocker out of the slot, but overall play we seem more fluid as offense with only slight adjustments.
On the other hand, one could say his pissed off teammate,the 66, is screaming at the coach to" give me the **** ball" then as the coach I listened and it paid off. ...cause if not that guy is going on the trade block .
Or my team just matched up well.. ......
Still, i loved the imaginary storyline it made for me. In other words one of my first experiences with this new feature was awesome to say the least.
I felt numerically wise it matched my imaginary effort put in. Even was almost a clue to my passing woes?